Equal money debate fallacy

[Bartelby]

1. Prize money is prize money. It is not an income as no one is employed. It is awarded based on merit. Coming first is important.

2. Tennis tournaments create hierarchies of talent. How they choose to structure and reward performance is arbitrary beyond rewarding those who win more than those who lose.

3. Grand slams are owned as a quasi-monopoly, co-ordinating their policies through a board of the ITF. They systematically under-reward all-players compared to team sports.

1. Distributing money based solely on merit - excluding gender, race, age etc. etc. is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF PREJUDICE. Prize money IS an income - if you want to call your fortnightly payment Prize Money for showing up, that is fine, it is a reflection of — in a free market — how well you do compared to others. A contract you get is a prize you won in a pool of all possible employees.

There will always be hierarchies in all aspects of life because people value some things more than others, and that creates inequality - no male model is screaming 'unfair' that he doesn't get paid as much as candice swanepoel. The women's fashion industry is disproportionately bigger than the men's, therefore what female models wear will make fashion companies more money than what any male model can compete with, therefore the female models themselves that the brands rely on to market their product get paid more. The beauty of a free market is that no 'body' or group gets to decide the rules, the free market decides based on their wallets - there is literally nothing fairer than that system. 'The best are rewarded more' - you said it yourself. Would you be happy if you lost out on a job where you were better qualified, but the other applicant got it on the notion that they were male, and the company needed equal numbers of female/male employees? I hope not.

3. I'm sure grand slams don't pull numbers out of a hat and decide on them that way - there are players councils, swaths of accountants at the grand slams would work on allocations and predicted allocations over the coming years depending on tv and sponsorship details.

 

[Bartelby]

This is a very bad analogy as the male and female events are two separate groups for the purposes of the tournament.

Btw, if you've ever done a group assignment, and had that one person who doesn't pull their weight, and then the group gets an A....that's what equal prize money is like.

The funny thing is, the women still make great money if they only get what they pull in. It's not like there aren't any female tennis fans. Serena Williams was making a heck of a lot more money than a male player ranked 50 in the world even when prize money wasn't equal. Equality of outcome is misguided empathy that has gone completely mad in this day and age, and people are too quick to forget how bad experiments along the lines of 'equal outcome' were in eastern europe in the 20th century.

 

[CYGS]

1. Prize money is prize money. It is not an income as no one is employed. It is awarded based on merit. Coming first is important.

2. Tennis tournaments create hierarchies of talent. How they choose to structure and reward performance is arbitrary beyond rewarding those who win more than those who lose.

3. Grand slams are owned as a quasi-monopoly, co-ordinating their policies through a board of the ITF. They systematically under-reward all-players compared to team sports.

Prize money is a taxable income.

 

[CYGS]

1. Prize money is prize money. It is not an income as no one is employed. It is awarded based on merit. Coming first is important.

2. Tennis tournaments create hierarchies of talent. How they choose to structure and reward performance is arbitrary beyond rewarding those who win more than those who lose.

3. Grand slams are owned as a quasi-monopoly, co-ordinating their policies through a board of the ITF. They systematically under-reward all-players compared to team sports.

Prize money is a taxable income.

 

[Bartelby]

But it is not such in the hands of the tournament and this is the only relevant legal fact when talking about what they pay in prize money.

The slams do not award equal prize money because they have to, nor to achieve equality of outcomes, but because they choose to do so in the best interests of the tournament.

Prize money is a taxable income.

 

[Bartelby]

Prize money is not income for the company giving it. It's an expense or outgoing or whatever companies call it.

So they can pay out what they like and if they treat men and women to the same prize money that's an organisational prerogative.

The WTA is not riding on coattails. It is a separate organisation that funds its activities separately.

 

[shazbot]

Let this sink in.

Take the 200th ranked male player in the world, Filip Peliwo and 200th ranked female player in the world, Lesley Kerkhove.

Filip has been a pro since 2013 and has made 227k USD, averaging 45k USD a year. Lesley has been a pro since 2013 as well and has made 389k, averaging 77k USD a year.

The 200th best NFL player in the US just signed a three year 24 million dollar deal with a 4 million dollar bonus (for a total of 28 million).

Why on earth would anyone want to play tennis when they can make that kind of money lol. The same money (actually more) can be made in Baseball and Basketball. Gender doesn't matter, tennis is just way too top heavy, in terms of payouts.

 

[Bartelby]

It's more accurate to say it is too bottom light in terms of payouts.

On the other hand, tennis is very efficient. Around fifty plus players keep a whole circuit running. That's a couple of teams in any another competition.

The real problem is that there is no market for tennis beyond the very small elite competitiona/tours.

Let this sink in.

Take the 200th ranked male player in the world, Filip Peliwo and 200th ranked female player in the world, Lesley Kerkhove.

Filip has been a pro since 2013 and has made 227k USD, averaging 45k USD a year. Lesley has been a pro since 2013 as well and has made 389k, averaging 77k USD a year.

The 200th best NFL player in the US just signed a three year 24 million dollar deal with a 4 million dollar bonus (for a total of 28 million).

Why on earth would anyone want to play tennis when they can make that kind of money lol. The same money (actually more) can be made in Baseball and Basketball. Gender doesn't matter, tennis is just way too top heavy, in terms of payouts.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Good point, I looked up Wimbledon ticket prices for 2019 finals and have to admit that I was surprised there is a difference in pricing. There has never been any empty seats on finals day when I have watched but wonder whether there would be if the Women's Final ticket prices were increased.

Saturday 13 July (WF) £185
Sunday 14 July (MF) £225

That doesn't explain half of it. The men's day basically sells out months in advance. The women's day follows much later - on account of those tickets being the only ones left basically.

Moreso, the resale market has the gap in prices much, much greater than the list price.

Aussie Open final tickets for the men average more than twice the price as the women's final all things told.

 

[Bartelby]

Men's tennis is the pinnacle of the sport so they can sell tickets for finals at a higher price, but there is still no reason to argue for unequal prize money simply on that basis.

The men's event is 'first among equals' and slams are defined by the fact that they produce two champions. If they were to become male-centric they would lose audiences.